Hama, your points are correct, but totally unrelated, and I think it important to note that the Gnostic Gospels were proscribed in the second century (according to the Muratorian Fragment, dated to ca. 175 AD), not the fourth (325 AD: the date of Nicea). There is always the danger of forgetfulness, but then that is why the Gospels were written in the first place. The Apostles were beginning to die or be killed off and people immediately recognized the value of committing what was thought to be known to paper before living memories were erased, whether by Time or by the authorities.<BR><BR>It should also be noted that authorities such as Clement (very early second century) Ignatius (late first century) and Irenaus, the author of Adversus Hieresias (middle second century) all preach against the Gnostic Gospels precisely because the sayings alleged to Christ in them were then known to be inventions and besides found to be heretical (in the original sense of the word: causing controversy and undermining logic and reason).<BR><BR>tuile, the question of the nature of God must rest in what is the most perfect formulation which can be conceived. Any formulation which is not internally perfect and ultimate implies that a Being could exist which would have a nature superior to the being so imperfectly defined as to have a counterpart or colleague. Having superiors defeats the definition as even fitting to the word-value "God". Such a being is perhaps much higher in nature to us mortals, but is externally constrained (by having a colleague of equal stature in nature), thus simply fails of the majesty of the word, regardless of the truth of existence. This is why the Gnostic model of multiple God, or degrees of emanations, or hierarchies of Aeons fails of rationality and cannot command belief. First, it is too complicated, much as the heavenly spheres were too complicated to explain planetary motion and the astromonic phenomena. Second, it is speculative, rather than revelatory. The Gnostic doctrines were devised as relatively jerry-rigged speculations, built out of ragtags from Greek philosophy, Chaldaean mysticism, Persian cosmogony and even Egyptian myth. The whole made a very pretty, very complex picture, but was simply something cobbled together. I find the testimony of the authentic Gospels to resist this cobbling effect. I find the evidence in them to describe events that very reliably could have happened, thus being internally credible, and I find that the Individual to which the whole testifies has internally consistent characteristics and is credibly divine. True, I must make one leap of faith in this, but the leap is far larger, should I think I would need to incorporate the fantastic vagaries of the Gnostics in coming to some kind of Unified Religious Theory.<BR><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>

I think the Gnostics' major flaw is that of fitting God into man's box. It made sense to Greeks that the material world was just a screwed up version of the perfect spiritual world. The philosophy of Plato had been around a long time when Christianity was speading.<BR><BR>Since God exists outside the World, it made sense that God could exist in Plato's perfect realm. If he did, it made sense that the material world of God also exists as Plato described it. What really go screwed up was when God took the form of a man, Jesus. This did not make sense, since the material world had to be screwed up, but God had to be perfect.<BR><BR>What are we to do? Are we to change our beliefs to come into line with what God says, or are we to tell people what God really meant?<BR><BR>Gnostics went the road of telling people what God really meant. Once you do this, you are no longer a follower of God, you try to be His leader. Many scriptures in the New Testament speak directly against principals adhered to by gnostics. Gnostics may have broken off from the Christian Church, but they are not Christians.<BR><BR>I guess one could say that they 'EVOLVED' into their own religion. No longer compatable with Christianity. There are other more modern groups that fall into the same catagory: Mormons and Jahova Witnesses.<BR><BR>By the way, WHY SHOULD EVOLUTION, A THEORY OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS? I was just wondering why other theories aren't taught? Is it really necessary to take that extra leap from survival of the fittest? Natural Selection is one thing, telling people how the universe created is quite another. As Tuile said, science is seeing how the world works, not its meaning.

Bringing the thread back closer to its roots, let me just say that evolution is not a theory on the creation of the world, and indeed it's not even a theory on the creation of life. It's a theory on the way life changes over time. And I'm damn glad it's taught in school, because it's a perfectly valid theory. Throw it out, and you may as well throw out cosmology, relativity, Einstein, half of physics, two-thirds of chemistry, and three-quarters of biology. Yeah, and then we can replace it all with religious texts and go back to the dark ages when the sun revolved around the earth.<BR><BR>Damn, I'm glad old-time religious nuttery is fading before the face of education and the advancement of science. The best shot the religious nuts had at turning back the clock happened a few years back in Kansas (I think) when the state legislature banned the teaching of evolution for awhile. It was reversed, last I heard. Whew. Close brush with theocracy, there.<BR><BR>Or maybe I'm wrong and the ban is still in place. Guess I'd have to look it up again.

Thanks, Annael, that was a very good piece of analysis there.<BR><BR>Sorry, Sauron, though you made a very nice beginning, it appears that if evolution is not about the creation of the world, then cosmology, Einstein, relativity, et al, have nothing to be theoretically concerned about should evolution cease to be considered an effective explanation.<BR><BR>I certainly do not hold that evolution is a sufficient explanation, even of how life changes, and I'm pretty religious, so if I have analyzed evolution, taken a number of classes directly based on it, learned my sciences assuming evolution to be true, and yet I still don't think it is either proven or even enough of an explanation to be considered fundamental, then I would suggest that being religious does not necessarily lead to theocracy, but that devotion to evolutionary science could. So, we'd be back in the same boat this thread was in a number of posts back: belief ends up always requiring a few axioms, none of which can even be motivated, but must simply be hypothecated and then believed. It's only a question of what axioms you use and whether they employ a common ground of being, that's all.<BR><BR>Have your biology teacher chew on this post, Sauron <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>

Sauron said:<BR><BR><b>let me say that evolution is not a theory on the creation of the world, and indeed it's not even a theory on the creation of life.</b><BR><BR>Sauron, does this mean you would be in favor of teaching evolution minus the theory that life evolve from a single organism, which came to life from goo? Would it be OK by you, if only the part of evolution that states that how creatures look can change due to natural selection, and leave it at that?<BR><BR>If so, this Christian 'fundamentalist' is in full agreement with you. Don't let the 'fundamentalist' throw you, I don't think that everyone must believe exactly the same as I do.

Let me state my point more plainly: strictly speaking, the theory of evolution concerns itself only with biological organisms and how they change over time via natural selection in populations and DNA mutation in individual organisms. It does not speak to HOW life arose from chemical interactions. Most of what you all are concerned about is whether evolution actually happens (unless I'm totally missing something here). Annael especially is questioning the validity of the theory of evolution because no one has actually witnessed one species changing into another on the macro scale. Very strange, in light of the fossil record which for some reason he continues to utterly ignore. And there's a lot more backing up evolution that just the fossil record, though it sure as hell seems to connect the dots for most folks who aren't blinded by their prejudiced preconceptions and spiritual insecurities.

Sauron,<BR>So you are saying that evolution is a theory on the development of life itself. That's a slight twist of creation, but words are important(As long as we both agree on what the definition of 'is' is).<BR><BR>My theory of the disjointed fossil record is that the earth could have been created with the fossil record already there. The Bible states that God created adult people (Adam and Eve), why would the earth be any different? I am just saying that the fossil record does not negate the possibility of the Creation Theory.<BR><BR>Since the Bible states that God created the different creatures of the world in a day(one period of daylight and darkness), to state that all creatures evolved from a single organism over a vast period of time, is blaspheme. This is OK for non-Christians to believe, God is to judge you, but it is not OK for the state to force its views on the christian children. Children are taught to believe what they are taught in school. For public schools to teach evolution, the state government is wandering into an area it has no business going into, from my point of view

This is getting a little frustrating for me, so I am just going to say a couple of things and then bow out. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR>Annael, I don't take the Bible literally, to me that is limiting one's view of religion and God, so I don't find any problem with evolution. There is no contradiction. <BR><BR>For one to say that evolution should not be taught in school, .. I just don't get it. It is a scientific theory along with all the rest, like stated before, and to throw it out is the one thing that make me think that you are only considering Christianity and science. I am entirely willing to be wrong about this!!!<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> What about all the people in the US that believe in something else (other religions, no religions )?? Shouldn't their beliefs get the same respect then too?? Why should evolution be scrapped because it doesn't jive with the literal reading of one religion?? Science has yet to disprove it as they do relativity and biochemistry (DNA sequencing) so it should be presented along with the rest. Should we not teach geology, biology?? They all tie in. I don't understand how one really big part can simply be tossed out.

Annael:<BR>Then I have a solution for you: just tell your offspring (if you have any) that what their biology teacher is telling them is all a pernicious lie. If they truly hark to your words and do not deem you to be the liar, then you've nothing to worry about and the lessons taught in school on evolution will just bounce right off their skulls like they were made of Teflon. Or take your children to a private Christian school or whatever. You obviously aren't going to change your mind about anything, and I certainly don't expect to win any converts. All I'll say is that to hold that life is immutable is plain silly, since artificial selection (i.e. breeding) has clearly demonstrated that animals CAN be made to change over time. And changes in an environment can affect fairly powerful NATURAL selection pressures which will cause species for which the environment is a habitat to slowly change over many generations. Whenever a population (or species) of microbe develops a resistance to an antibiotic or an insect adapts to a type of pesticide, you're talking about biological evolution on the DNA level, and DNA is the conveyor of inheritance. Really, if you can't see that, and you can't recognize all the gradually changing fossilized forms of a species which appear in different geological strata dating back to PROGRESSIVELY MORE RECENT TIMES in geological history, then there's not much that can be done.

Sauron,<BR><BR>If the fossil record is as continuous as you say it is, then why are they still looking for the missing link. The fossil record has gaps. Just because you fill in those gaps with your own bias, doesn't mean the fossil record is a smooth as you want it to be.<BR><BR>Tell me, am I wrong, or have they found "the missing link"? Have they found a continuous evolutionary path for any modern creature?<BR><BR>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that even this evidence would negate the possibibility of Creation. Any open minded person would admit that. That is open minded, defined by accepting the fact that really anything could have happened.

Annael, just how many points do you need on a scatterplot in order to perceive a prevailing trend? Hmm? Do you expect a nice, continuous curve to be graphed out for you? Mathematically speaking that would require an infinite number of points. With regards to the issue at hand, biologists do not have an infinite number of fossils in stock. Just step back and look at the big picture of how man evolved. In the fossil record we DO see a clear progression. Naturally those who refuse to accept evolution will always point to a space between any two successive fossil specimens and say "Hey, where's the link between that one and that one?" Feh. I tell you, I know a clear trend when I see one; and radiocarbon dating of geological strata in which fossils are excavated sure do put things in clear chronological order (at least for me). And if a specimen is found midway between two others, the unbeliever will point to the now smaller gap and say "What about the space between those two"? So naturally a "missing link" will never be found which will satisfy you, since you'll always wiggle out of the tightening noose and point frantically at some other minute hole in the fabric and try to make the case for it being a fatal tear. I know when I'm dealing with religious blindness here, so I'm finished with this discussion. You can lead a fundamentalist to logic, but you just can't make him drink.

Annael: Here's a link to a continuous fossil record<BR><BR>http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/pelycodus.html<BR><BR>No, it's not to humans.<BR><BR>I'm going to leave it at that, since I've already presented documented and observed data to answer your questions. You have been quite clear that even in the face of such evidence, nothing will change your mind, so there's not much point providing any more.<BR><BR>

There you go trying to hang me again. Would you please stop that, it's a little scary.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Wouldn't it seem likely that the more recent fossils would be more abundant and easier to find? It seems to me that at least the link immediately before man would be found.<BR><BR>And I know a Zealot when I see one. A fanatic doesn't just come in the form of a Christian Sauron.<BR><BR>Evidently you are so closed minded on the subject that you are unwilling to even admit that Creation or any other religious Theory could possibly be true.

Jester,<BR><BR>From what I saw, the evolution of this animal was basically the same creature. It just demonstrated the refinement of the creature, natural selection, not a split into two (or more) different animals. After all, isn't that what evolution is all about? Seals and Donkeys having a common ancestor?

Annael: Now that I’ve thought about this discussion a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that your basic question is something like “Why do people believe in evolution rather than in creation?” Going back over this thread, maybe I can answer that for you, at least in part. Please note that I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind or beliefs about anything, just answering that question.<BR><BR>First, let’s deal with “evolution”, using some of your own questions:<BR><BR><i>Has there ever been a single 'evolution' proven to ever have happen? </i><BR><BR>I’ve addressed that several times in my previous posts, by providing observed evolutionary changes on both the micro and macroevolutionary scales, for the plant and animal kingdoms.<BR><BR><BR><i>I believe there is a problem defining different species. It must be defined using chromosome chains, not physical characteristics</i><BR><BR>I’ve also addressed that in my previous posts, providing information on various studies of different species (mostly for the plant kingdom, because I didn’t see the need to extend the search any further).<BR><BR><BR><i>For you staunch evols out there, can you show me one creature that has been proven to have evolved from another creature”</i><BR><BR>Well, I’ve already done that in previous posts, both for the plant and animal kingdoms. How about a discussion on transitions between species on the mammalian scale?<BR><BR>http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html<BR><BR>You might notice that this article is NOT from talkorigins.com (since you seem to have a problem with that site), but from the American Scientific Affiliation, a 60 year old organization of christian scientists (not Christian Scientists, by the way).<BR><BR>So, I’ve provided concrete proof that evolution occurs on the micro and macro scales. This is a vanishingly minute amount of the evidence that is easily available if one cares to look.<BR><BR><BR>Secondly, let’s look at the available evidence of “creationism”:<BR><BR>First, we have the Bible. Actually, we have several versions of the Bible. And if you want to expand your horizons, we have the “creation” stories of any number of past and present religeons, societies and peoples in different areas of the world.<BR><BR>But, unfortunately, the existence of a story, religeon, or mythology (however you wish to term it) does not constitute testable evidence of any kind. So is there any concrete, physical evidence of any sort at all to support the “creationist” argument?<BR><BR>*sound of crickets chirping and tumbleweeds rolling by in the desert wind*<BR><BR>As far as I have been able to find, the answer is no. The sole arguments for the “creationist” viewpoint are not evidence, but attempts to bypass, disregard or otherwise ignore the evidence in support of the “evolutionary” theory.<BR><BR>So back to your basic question, why believe one over the other? The simple answer is that there is proof for evolution, and none for creation. Setting aside religious belief, people tend to believe something that can be proven over something that cannot.<BR><BR>And with that, I shall bow out of the discussion. All these links and information I’ve found in quite a short period of time, using a simple web search on Yahoo. Anyone else could do the same, if they were truly interested in learning the differences in “evolution”, “creation”, and “natural selection”. I am growing very weary of doing other peoples research for them.<BR>

Nope, that is not my question at all.<BR><BR>Here is my question:<BR><BR>Is Macroevolution from sludge provable? Even if an entire continuous fossil record is found. Even if every machanism for it were proven possible, is the fact that <b>indeed it did</b> happen this way ever be proven?<BR><BR>If it can not, then the distinction that has been made on this thread between science(open minded) being provable and religion(close minded) unprovable has been blurred on this issue.<BR><BR>Macroevolution, since it can not be proven that it did indeed happen, is unprovable.<BR><BR>This is not a court of law. No judgement must be made on this matter. Why is it so important that evolution must be true?(this is a sub-question of the original question)<BR><BR>It has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical account of Creation. It has everything to do with the hypocracy of saying that what you can't prove is just religion and what we can't prove, is true because we say it is.<BR><BR>Now, I will go back and read the rest of your post Jester.<BR><BR>Trust me this is the question I am asking.

Well, sorry to break this to you, but there's just a major problem with creationism:<BR>do you have any idea of the hundreds (literally) of different creations that are found in hundreds of religions? If evolution is wrong, then how can you claim that Christian creation is right? It may well be the creation according to Navajos, or ancient Greeks, or Chinese.<BR>Not to mention: if you feel offended by anything that isn't right on on the Bible, then sorry, but unless you're fluent in ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramean you simply cannot have a definitive version of the Bible, we've spoken of that before. So if someone comes and tells you that your interpretation of some part is wrong, because it's not really what was written, what do you do?<BR>And don't come with "oh but language evolves so of course old translations should be changeed". If you EVER learned any foreign language, especially if you ever tried an ancient dead language, you could easily see it's not that easy. Even Latin translation seriously differs from Greek and Hebrew. St Hieronymus left some letters where he spoke of his effort and his trouble when translating Bible. For instance, when you come to a simile, a metaphor, do you translate it literally, do you adapt it to nowadays? And there are obviously double meaning on some words, the kind that can simply not be translated in a foreign language, so which meaning do you keep?<BR>Tough work.

Sorry to break it to you fatty,<BR>I'm not trying to prove that the Biblical account of creation is true.<BR><BR>I'm just saying that belief that life evolved on this planet through Macroevolution is unprovable and therefore, as defined by others on this thread, a religion. Being so belief in it must be closed minded.<BR><BR>That is all, nothing more, nothing less.<BR><BR>For all I know, Macroevolution did happen from a bunch of sludge hit by lightning. All I am saying is that it is totally unprovable.<BR><BR>NOT THAT IT COULD, JUST THAT IT DID!

OK, this was explaine dbefore, by Jester I think.<BR>Apparently Annael wasn't paying much attention to it.<BR><BR>Scientific method, according to Karl Popper: you CANNOT prove something is definitely absolutely 100\% correct. You CAN prove it's wrong. As long as a theory hasn't been proven wrong, as long as it fits the facts, evidences and doesn't contradict everything, it's assumed to be close to reality. For instance evolution.<BR>According to Popper, every scientific theory should be falsifiable, that is you may be able to prove it wrong in a way or another. So, if you say "If the switch isn't on "on", it's on "off" " is not falsifiable, obviously, and isn't a theory. If you visit Scotland and see a black sheep, you can come with the theory that "Scotland sheep are all black", which can easily be proven wrong when you see a white sheep. Religion on the other hand can usually not be proven wrong, because its premises aren't made so that they can be falsified.<BR>There's a basic difference between creationism and evolution, creationism basis is that it's true; evolution basis is that it's the more probably theory according to current knowledge. Normally, if eivdences proved it's total nonsense, the theory should vanish, as other theories vanished in the past. If evidences show the way scientists see evolution isn't quite right but should be modified, they will try to come with an altered theory. So far I never heard any conservative creationist Christian claiming that if s/he ahd some evidences, s/he would alter his/her view of creaton to fit the facts. You have total faith on one hand, and one the other hand people who should be ready to modify their opinion on the other.<BR>Note I precise "should". Because, even if it hasn't been mentioned here, scientific process is not as smooth, as devoted to pure truth, as free from personal interests as it is; so there are scientists that would rather try to keep their own theories untouched; there are competition between teams. Basically, the whole scientific process isn't exactly what Popper would like, but whatever it's still farther from blind faith or vested interest than creationism is.<BR>If at least some creationist would say "Look, if I find good theological, religious and scientific evidence the world was created in 8 days and God then took 3 days of vacation; I may change my opinion of 6+1" then i would have more respect for them <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>

Here is one Creationist who is willing to modify is views on how it happened. I do not believe I have perfect interpretation. Now since I am willing to modify my views, does this mean that Creation is now acceptable?<BR><BR>I don't think this is what you were intending to say, but to me it kind of sounded like it. If I am correct, what you were trying to say was because evolution is based on observation of physical things, then it is considered to be true. Since it has not been proven false, then it is assumed to be true. This is because the people who originally came up with the idea did not think it had to be true to begin with.<BR><BR>This would mean an unprovable thing is considered true under the two following conditions:1)That it has not been proven false and that it's believers are willing to adjust their views. 2)That the person/people who came up with the idea did so on knowing they might be wrong.<BR><BR>To say that something is believed true purely based on the additude of the people who believe in it, is laughable.<BR><BR>By the way, what makes Karl Popper the ultimate authority of what kind of view of what might happened is true, while the other theory of what might have happened is not true?<BR><BR>Especially when NEITHER THEORY IS DISPROVABLE?

Not to make you think that I would consider evolution as entirely accurate, but what application is there for this theory?<BR><BR>Not natural selection mind you, I am talking about an application of all life from the same source, goo.(I too believe that all life came from one source, God)<BR><BR>I see an aplication for the theory of relativity, gravity and other such scientific theories. What use is there for evolution, other than denying the existance of God.

Oh that's pathetic. You've beared yourself at last, and we can see now your true motivations for gainsaying evolution. You think, somehow, it is mutually exclusive with God.<BR><BR>You're going to have a tough life in the 21st century, buddy.

I don't see how my belief in Creation was ever in question.<BR><BR>I don't think that my belief that evolution is wrong was ever in question.<BR><BR>I just wasn't pushing my beliefs on you! Unlike the guy with the tree ready to hang people like me.<BR><BR>My question is valid I believe. What actual application is there for evolution(as described in by post at the top of the page)?

LOL<BR><BR>Science is NOT about USES and APPLICATIONS. That's for engineers, not for scientists. Though both domains are blurreed and fuzzy nowadays.<BR>Yet a scientific theory is not here to justify anything, or to deny anythign, or to be used. It's there to EXPLAIN and UNDERSTAND how things work.<BR>If you know how it works, then you can think of how to take advantage of it for one use or another. But originally, that's secondary to science. Yet, in fact, scientific theory may be used for secondary purposes, nowadays, it's a clear thing.<BR>I don't care at all if there's any USE to evolution, I don't give it a damn. That is seeking of knowledge, one of the biggest achievement of human mind, and what should be one of the main goals of our species. That, NOT finding ways of becoming rich and getting 3'000'000 $ a year, which is just a selfish highly despicable annyoing pastime and nothing more <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR>Of course, seeking knowledge is not the only high goal, just one of them; you may put art, literature, similar things as civilised activities of humans as well.<BR>So: Darwin didn't think of any use evolution could have in every day life, it wasn't his goal. Then, he was pretty embarrassed with his findings and kept them secret of 30 years because he feared people would be mad at him, and he was himself highly disturbed.

Therefore, Fatty, you think that there really is no application for evolution?<BR><BR>My angle on this is for high school education. Shouldn't we be teaching our children things that could be useful in their lives? Academic pursuits for academic pursuits on one's own dime is one thing. Wasting tax payers dollars on something a frivolous as purely academic pursuit is a shame. <BR><BR>There are other things that can be taught during that time that might actually mean a career for someone. That is all. <BR><BR>I am still interested if anyone else has any ideas on applications of macroevolution.

If you ask me it now, I cannot say which applications evolution may have.<BR>Now, may I ask you: What uses have Literature and History? I barely see any. Yet they're teached.<BR>I take HUGE issue with the reasoning that what is teached and what kids learn in school should be efficient and useful. Useful regarding which criteria, first? Economic?<BR>Gimme a break. Do you think Einstein's research would have been though "useful" in 1905? Yet without him there wouldn't be nuclear power, which has been a major part of US economy (and Japan, France and other countries).<BR>You simply cannot know what will be useful in the future, it's not possible. You can only have some idea of what is useful in the current technological system. But this is a limited perfectible system. As it is, it'll go into crisis sooner or later (think energy crisis for instance). One day either it'll need new powerful revolutionary discoveries, or it'll go down the drain like Russia nowadays. And those new technologies you simply cannot know what they'll be. General knowledge, basic research are needed for this.<BR>Teaching people only what is useful at the moment is very short-sighted. Not to mention that it basically reduces people to robots.<BR>Now, i wonder if teaching children to write is very useful. At least not to all, we'll always need some factory work that don't need any reading, so why waste money on that? Frankly, we'd better test all babies and see what their abilities are so that we could teach them what matters for the economy. The superior ones will be teached a lot of various stuff, and the ones we'll keep for mindless repetitive jobs in offices, factories, agriculture, will barely be teached anything else.<BR>(hum, and if you think I read too much Brave New World you're perhaps correct <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> )

Well Fatty,<BR><BR>I do not believe Einstien's theories are very useful to high school students, college, possibly, but not high school.<BR><BR>As far as literature, I would agree that it is not an essential topic, but knowing how to read is. Writing is very important. If you cannot write, then you would never be able to post to this thread<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>.<BR><BR>History on the other hand is very important. In a country where the people vote, the population needs to be as informed as possible. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.<BR><BR>I believe you have my intent on this idea all wrong. I am concerned for the individual. Why waste someone's time on something total irrelevent to his/her life. True, knowing how to graph a line in slope-intercept form is not very useful information, but it is necessary to get into college. Mathematics is useful in scientific fields.<BR><BR>It just seems that there is not enough time to teach the relevent things, without having to waste time on things that have no purpose other than itself.<BR><BR>Sorry to say it, but macroevolution seems to me to be one such topic. As far as application towards life, irrelevent at best.<BR>